Appeal No. 1997-1816
Application No. 08/178,269
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Frost et al. (Frost) 5,034,401 Jul. 23, 1991
Chenard (Chenard '343) 5,185,343 Feb. 09, 1993
Chenard (Chenard '723) 5,306,723 Apr. 26, 1994
(§ 102(e) date Nov. 6, 1992)
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to novel
neuroprotective 2-(4-hydroxypiperidino)-1-alkanol derivatives
of the recited formula. The claimed compounds find utility in
treating stroke, traumatic injury to the brain and spinal cord
and neuronal degenerative diseases, such as senile dementias.
Appealed claims 11, 14, 17 and the quinolyl compounds of
claims 1-10, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Frost in view of Chenard '343. The
same claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Frost in view Chenard '723. In addition,
the same claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chenard '723 in view of Frost.
We consider first the examiner's rejection over Frost in
view of Chenard '723. The examiner recognizes that the
difference between the compounds of Frost and the claimed
compounds is that "Frost's R is hydrogen while the claimed4
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007